Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Refutation of Reviving Al-Islam (Nader Zaveri) on Marriage of Syeda Umme Kulthum Bint Ali (عليه السلام) with Umar

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

JzkAllah Br. @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi! But do we have any idea as to who this other Umme Kulthum is? And why would The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) marry 2 of his daughters to Usman? Wasn't he a nasibi as well? Same goes for Aisha and Hafsa, and Abu Bakr and Lady Asma(sa)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

“I addressed (proposed) before your brother's son (nephew), and he denied me

Also, Thaqlain.net translate this tradition like this:

"He (the Imam) has said that he saw al-‘Abbas and asked, ‘What is wrong with me, is there something wrong with me?’ He al-‘Abbas asked, ‘What is the matter?’ He replied saying, ‘I proposed marriage before the son of your brother for his daughter but he rejected my proposal."

 

So what is the correct translation?

 

Also, why would Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) say that she was stolen from us if she wasn't even Imam Ali's daughter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, MaisumAli said:

what is the correct translation?

I dont see word daughter in arabic. I pasted it on google it didn't translate to it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 hours ago, MaisumAli said:

JzkAllah Br. @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi! But do we have any idea as to who this other Umme Kulthum is? And why would The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) marry 2 of his daughters to Usman? Wasn't he a nasibi as well? Same goes for Aisha and Hafsa, and Abu Bakr and Lady Asma(sa)

I don't think uthman did anything during the lifetime of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to be labelled a nasibi. In general, the enmity towards the ahlulbayt (عليه السلام), apart from some instances, was generally manifested after the time of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) rather than in his presence.

As for the identity of umm kulthoom, I believe brother @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi has briefly explained in his post that it was Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, MaisumAli said:

JzkAllah Br. @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi! But do we have any idea as to who this other Umme Kulthum is? And why would The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) marry 2 of his daughters to Usman? Wasn't he a nasibi as well? Same goes for Aisha and Hafsa, and Abu Bakr and Lady Asma(sa)

We believe that they left Siraat Al Mustaqeem when they denied Ghadeer-e-Khum after Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away. Before that everyone (almost) was a Muslim except for Hypocrites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

We believe that they left Siraat Al Mustaqeem when they denied Ghadeer-e-Khum after Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away. Before that everyone (almost) was a Muslim except for Hypocrites.

Oh you mean that elongated story that has NO chains? So the ones who didn’t believe became hypocrites and the ones that did became shia.

Great work shah sahab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
23 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I would end it here.

You might want to read the book written on this subject by the well known cleric from Lahore, Baqir Hussain Najfi. Must be available in Jamia Muntazir book depot, model town. It will arm you with much more information on the subject. ^^ In fact, if you are going to stick with munazra for a while then get all his books. It will be the best source you will find. Personally I found very little use of all sorts of munazra. The people who value logic, reason and evidence are like salt in the flour, and even then we all know how to shrug something off and carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

As for the identity of umm kulthoom, I believe brother @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi has briefly explained in his post that it was Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr. 

Yes but isn't historically known that Umm Kulthoom b. Abi Bakr married Talha?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

JzkAllah Br. @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi! 

10 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Tabari records that Umar did actually want to marry Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr, but apparently A'isha refused (this was after the demise of Abu Bakr, when Umar was caliph). 

and br Mahdavist a reference I mean a link would be nice to the marker above

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, Guest HeavyD said:

Oh you mean that elongated story that has NO chains? So the ones who didn’t believe became hypocrites and the ones that did became shia.

Great work shah sahab.

What do you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, haideriam said:

Also if it was even Umm Kulthoom bint Abi Bakr who was in the care of Imam Ali(عليه السلام), it would sound not nice. She would be the sister of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.

 

 

 

Ali (عليه السلام) wasn't her father anyways. He was just raising her. Thus when other people like Abbas asked him to let him manage this, he didn't object to it but he himself denied proposal of Umar. And as Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said, they were forced to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Just to add important note for you brother@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi i.e., as per historical records this marriage happened in 17AH. 

The date of birth of Umm Kulthum bint Ali (عليه السلام) was 6AH, while the birth date of Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr was 12-13 AH 

So one of them would be of 11 years of age while other was 4-5 years of age in 17AH. 

I don't see any reason as to why Umar propose for a 4 years old girl instead of 11years old girl.

Note: I am just questioning it for you to dig more deeper and find the truth. Otherwise you know what are my views about Umar very well. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, haideriam said:

JzkAllah Br. @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi! 

and br Mahdavist a reference I mean a link would be nice to the marker above

 

image.thumb.png.12c0ef9e0710cc9ed10e9f1fb081d8e9.pngimage.thumb.png.f4d98590009e6debe704e3302aa38863.png 

https://muslim-library.com/books/2019/05/en_Tabari_Volume_14.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

One more important note which require further research. According to wikipedia, Umm Kulthum was the daughter of Habiba bint Kharija, not Asma bint Umays. So perhaps her date of birth as given in other sources i.e., 12-13 AH is not correct.

Asma bint Umays (رضي الله عنه) had only one child which was Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (رضي الله عنه)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Cool said:

The date of birth of Umm Kulthum bint Ali (عليه السلام) was 6AH, while the birth date of Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr was 12-13 AH 

Abu Bakr died in the 13th Hijra I believe, also keep in mind that The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) rejected Umar to marry Fatima(sa) because of the age difference, and this same man comes to propose to her daughter

Edited by MaisumAli
Spelling mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
9 hours ago, Cool said:

Just to add important note for you brother@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi i.e., as per historical records this marriage happened in 17AH. 

The date of birth of Umm Kulthum bint Ali (عليه السلام) was 6AH, while the birth date of Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr was 12-13 AH 

So one of them would be of 11 years of age while other was 4-5 years of age in 17AH. 

I don't see any reason as to why Umar propose for a 4 years old girl instead of 11years old girl.

Note: I am just questioning it for you to dig more deeper and find the truth. Otherwise you know what are my views about Umar very well. 

 

Seems like this makes a lot more sense for the reason of first asking Aisha, also in I believe the book Al Farooq by Shibli Nomani he mentions that this Umm Kulthum was a 'sageera' which translates to about the age of 5 maybe 6.  Only snag being that if she was the daughter of Habiba bint Kharija, then why was consent of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) required etc. 

Edited by haideriam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, haideriam said:

Only snag being that if she was the daughter of Habiba bint Kharija, then why was consent of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) required etc. 

I was reading a research paper which mentioned that Umar had 4 wives with this name or kunniyah of Umm Kulthoom. 

1. Umm Kulthum bint Asim. Her actual name was Jamila. According to some sources, her kunya was Umm Asim, not Umm Kulthum.

2. Umm Kulthum bint Jarwila Khuzima. Her actual name was Maleeka.

3. Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr.

Which one is the 4th? Or the claim that Umar had 4 wives with this name or nick is a lie? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Cool said:

I was reading a research paper which mentioned that Umar had 4 wives with this name or kunniyah of Umm Kulthoom. 

1. Umm Kulthum bint Asim. Her actual name was Jamila. According to some sources, her kunya was Umm Asim, not Umm Kulthum.

2. Umm Kulthum bint Jarwila Khuzima. Her actual name was Maleeka.

3. Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr.

Which one is the 4th? Or the claim that Umar had 4 wives with this name or nick is a lie? 

This is the zulm on the ahlulbayt(عليه السلام) that even history is recorded with distortions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will simply point out the flaws and inconsistencies in the arguments of the poster:

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Definitely It is a controversial. The reason is, we have tons of narrations of bravery of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and that marrying Nasibi is Haram. I'm surprised Mr. Nader sahib says the people (Majority of shias) who are against it use Shadd narratives to disprove this. Lol. InshaAllah I will show that Hadiths that mention marrying Nawasib is Haram aren't Shadd.

You are reading this historical event with so much theology that it is unbelievable. Remember, you probably have no problem ignoring the bravery of Imam Ali while his wife was attacked and humiliated, he (a) does not even come to defend her as per popular Shi'a narrative, yet over here you have a problem with his daughter marrying Umar in a legitimate marriage contract. Secondly, discussions on the rulings of Nasibis and who they were began many decades later, and detailed discussions on them and their nature began more than a century later in the times of Imam Baqir (a) and Imam Sadiq (a). There is no legal "concept" of Nasibi at the time of the first 3 caliphs, not even the Shi'a companions of Imam Ali understood anything as such and neither did Ali (a) behave with the caliphs for decades as if they were Nawasib. On the contrary this historical event (of her marriage) would prove that Umar was at the very least not a legal fiqhi nasibi, not that you first believe he was a nasibi and then find it difficult to accept this marriage which has been documented in history and accepted by all early Muslims (Sunni and Shia scholars). I leave you with the words of Sayyid Khumayni when discussing the rulings on Nawasib and Khawarij, says that the rulings apply to those people who actually held a theological position against Ali and the Ahlul Bayt:

و الظاهر أنّ ذلك لعدم نجاسة مطلق المحارب و الناصب، و أنّ الطائفتين- لعنهما اللّٰه لم تنصبا للأئمّة (عليهم السّلام) لاقتضاء تديّنهما ذلك، بل لطلب الجاه و الرياسة و حبّ الدنيا الذي هو رأس كلّ خطيئة، أعاذنا اللّٰه منه بفضله

and he says that people like Aisha, Talha, Zubayr etc. were not individuals who held a theological belief in the hatred of Ali (a), rather it was a hatred based off other reasons, due to seeking power, love of wealth and so on. Nawasib and Khawarij were people who held certain theological beliefs, these groups were not formed until many decades later and this is why the narrations on them also only appear by later Imams (a).

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

What he proved: "Umar married Umme Kulthum"

Above two hadiths didn't prove what he intended to prove because: 1. Hadiths mention "Umme Kulthum" rather than "Umme Kulthum Bint Ali"

When the narration is talking about an Umm Kulthum and Ali bringing her to his house, which other Umm Kulthum would be so prominent in history at the time that you would think this is speaking about someone else? If it is someone else, what does she have to do with Ali?

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

1. Have a close look at hadiths. There are three different narrators of this hadith. Abdullah Bin Sinan, Muawiyah Bin Wahab and Sulaiman Bin Khalid.

In the version of Muawiyah Bin Wahab and Abdullah Bin Sinan, they asked imam if a widow can spend Iddah in her house or anywhere she likes. Widow has a share in House of Husband as well as her father's house. So both will come under "Her house". Its just natural that her father's house is her house as well. And Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) replied she can spend her iddah anywhere she likes and then gave example that after Umar's death, Ali bought Umme Kulthum to his house. it proves that house of Ali (عليه السلام) wasn't her house else we would have to admit Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) gave false example which isn't possible. Thus proving she wasn't the daughter of Ali (عليه السلام) rather she was some other Umme Kulthum. Probably Bint Abi Bakr since Imam Ali (عليه السلام) married wife of Abu Bakr after his death.

This is really funny. It would never say "her house" in Arabic because firstly it is not "her" house (she does not legally own it) and more importantly, you would leave the reader and listener confused. What you are saying it should say sounds like this, "When Umar died - while Umm Kulthum was in her house (i.e. Umar's house), Ali grabbed her hand and brought her to her house." A listener won't even be able to understand what's going on, how did she go from "her house" to "her house".

Whereas any person who wants to convey the simple fact that Umm Kulthum was brought from Umar's house to Ali's house would have to say something along the lines of: "When Umar died, Ali grabbed her hand and brought her to his house." The pronoun "his" has to be used because the verb and action is that of Ali's, even if Umm Kulthum has some supposed share in the house (which is not even legally true, as she is not the owner of the house).

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Then he quotes another narration:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ وَ حَمَّادٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي تَزْوِيجِ أُمِّ كُلْثُومٍ فَقَالَ إِنَّ ذَلِكَ فَرْجٌ غُصِبْنَاهُ
 
From Zuraarah from Abee `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom. So he (عليه السلام) said: “That this was the farj* that was forced (coerced) from us”
 

Again the hadith is missing "Umme Kulthum Bint Ali" rather it mentions "Umme Kulthum". (Isn't the same as what Mr. Nader claimed)

Why on earth would it mention "bint Ali"? If there are narrations that mention Fatima (s) without mentioning "bint Muhammad" while the reports are about the Prophet's family, or someone coming to the Prophet and asking him about Fatima or the Prophet going to Fatima etc., will you just make assumptions that this is someone else? No, because Fatima is a well known figure and the daughter of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), when her name is mentioned in these contexts you don't assume it is someone else, rather you assume her to be the daughter of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and you expect the report to mention her father's name IF it was some other Fatima. So when there are narrations concerning the Imams or Ali, or Ali and Umar, it is absurd to assume some other Umm Kulthum is being spoken about. If it was another Umm Kulthum they would have to mention who she was the daughter of because of her complete irrelevance to Ali and the rest of his family. Which of the other Umm Kulthum had anything to do with Ali, or the rest of the Imams - why does Abu Abdillah in the above narration use the word "forced from us". Why is she part of "us"? Us implies she was part of family.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Another hadith that further explains this hadith was present in Mr. Naders article:

1. hadith Doesn't mention "Umme Khulthum Bint Ali"

2. hadith Doesn't mention Umar asked Ali (عليه السلام) to marry His Daughter to him.

This probably explains that Masoomeen (عليه السلام) were forced not to interfere in this matter. Now if it was for Ali's own daughter, then its illogical that Ali (عليه السلام) would simply handover this matter to someone else. Going against authentic narration of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (Mursal of Sadooq is reliable): Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) looked at children of Ali and Jaffer and Said: Our Sons are for Our Daughters and our daughters are for our sons. (Man La Yahzarahu Al Faqih). Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) already reserved daughters of Ali for Jaffer's sons. Thus another strong evidence that these hadiths didn't talk about marriage of Umme Kulthum Bint Ali rather it was some other Umme Kulthum. 

You are right it does not mention Umm Kulthum, but it is not that complicated to put all these narrations together to figure out what is being spoken about. Further, it may be illogical in 21st century, but this sounds very possible 14 centuries ago when other family members may have to play such roles and responsibiliies in these type of matters.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

The Imams (عليه السلام) had their necks chopped off but they never opposed Sunnah of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) rather protected it. How did Ali (عليه السلام) deny Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)'s tradition when Quran and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) can never seperate from each other?.

Taqiyya literally means doing something or saying something which is against the truth, and as per popular Shi'a narrative, the Imams did tons of taqiyyah and encouraged their followers to do so as well. So I'm sure you can explain the marriage of Umm Kulthum and Umar with that as well, if you can do it for many other things, give it a try and I'm sure you can explain this whole marriage as some sort of taqiyya as well.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْقُمِّيِّ عَنِ الْقَدَّاحِ عَنْ جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ ع قَالَ مَاتَتْ أُمُّ كُلْثُومٍ بِنْتُ عَلِيٍّ ع وَ ابْنُهَا زَيْدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ فِي سَاعَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ لَا يُدْرَى أَيُّهُمَا هَلَكَ قَبْلُ فَلَمْ يُوَرِّثْ أَحَدَهُمَا مِنَ الْآخَرِ وَ صَلَّى عَلَيْهِمَا جَمِيعاً

 
From Al-QadaaH from Ja`far (Al-Saadiq) (عليه السلام) from his father (عليه السلام) He said: “Umm Kulthoom, daughter of `Alee (عليه السلام), and her son Zayd bin `Umar bin Al-KhaTTaab died at the same time. They did not know who passed away before, so they did not inherit from one another, and they prayed (the funeral prayer) upon them together”
 

He Himself admitted جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْقُمِّيِّ is Majhool.

There are a few problems with this narration.

1. None of authentic narrations mentioned Umme Kulthum as daughter of Ali, this addition (أُمُّ كُلْثُومٍ بِنْتُ عَلِيٍّ ع) appeared in weak narration thus is dis-regarded.

Well lucky for you the narration is considered authentic by Ayatullah Shobeiry Zanjani who considers جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْقُمِّيِّ as thiqa upon further research and most likely considers him to be جعفر بن محمد الأشعري who narrates from Ibn al-Qaddah a lot.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

2. Authentic Narrations say Ali (عليه السلام) took Umme Kulthum to his house, but this narration say she died before Umar. (i think Mr. Nader Zaveri needs to decide what actually happened)

Read the narration again, it doesn't say anything about her dying before Umar.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

3. How come a narration having unqiue things with one majhool narrator serve as a proof? Lol

By showing that it actually may well be a very reliable narration. 

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

4. Even if جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْقُمِّيِّ is regarded as Thiqa, this narration still would contradict many other narrations thus Shadd in The End. And it could be said that it was narrated due to Taqqiyah since this has been authentically narrated by Nisai 1978 (https://sunnah.com/nasai/21/162) Isnaad e Sahih thus is a sunni narrative.

It is not contradicting any other narration. It is only conflicting with your uneasy feelings that are based on certain theological views and a superimposed historical narrative that you developed.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:08 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Some Other Reasons Why it has to be some Umme Kulthum other than the daughter of Imam Ali (عليه السلام): 

None of this disproves the historical event, these reports you have cited are being said in 2nd century hijri and have a lot of socio-political contexts that needs to be understood. None of these narrations prove Umar is actually to be classified legally as a Nasibi or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

You are reading this historical event with so much theology that it is unbelievable. Remember, you probably have no problem ignoring the bravery of Imam Ali while his wife was attacked and humiliated, he (a) does not even come to defend her as per popular Shi'a narrative, yet over here you have a problem with his daughter marrying Umar in a legitimate marriage contract

I don't think i have defended the event in the way it has been narrated. You are just assuming things.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

Secondly, discussions on the rulings of Nasibis and who they were began many decades later, and detailed discussions on them and their nature began more than a century later in the times of Imam Baqir (a) and Imam Sadiq (a). There is no legal "concept" of Nasibi at the time of the first 3 caliphs, not even the Shi'a companions of Imam Ali understood anything as such and neither did Ali (a) behave with the caliphs for decades as if they were Nawasib. On the contrary this historical event (of her marriage) would prove that Umar was at the very least not a legal fiqhi nasibi, not that you first believe he was a nasibi and then find it difficult to accept this marriage which has been documented in history and accepted by all early Muslims (Sunni and Shia scholars)

Islam was completed at Ghadeer e Khum and all rulings were passed down to Aima (عليه السلام) by Prophet Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Therefore the ruling that says marring Nawasib is haram can't be a new addition to deen e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Also Nawasib are the ones who have hatred for Ahlebait (عليه السلام) and they include defenders of Sheikhein. And Sheikhein were one of greatest enemies of Ahlul Bait (عليه السلام). Question is, why is marrying Nawasib Haram? Its because of their hatred for Ahlul Bait (عليه السلام). And if you don't believe (as a shia) that sheikhein did hate Ahlebait and usurped their rights, then you are clearly not a shia. Simple.

So saying Marrying nawasib became haram much later is basically same as accusing Aima (عليه السلام) of Biddah Nauzobillah. Deen was completed long ago and they (عليه السلام) didn't make new additions to deen rather conveyed rulings of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

I leave you with the words of Sayyid Khumayni when discussing the rulings on Nawasib and Khawarij, says that the rulings apply to those people who actually held a theological position against Ali and the Ahlul Bayt:

و الظاهر أنّ ذلك لعدم نجاسة مطلق المحارب و الناصب، و أنّ الطائفتين- لعنهما اللّٰه لم تنصبا للأئمّة (عليهم السّلام) لاقتضاء تديّنهما ذلك، بل لطلب الجاه و الرياسة و حبّ الدنيا الذي هو رأس كلّ خطيئة، أعاذنا اللّٰه منه بفضله

and he says that people like Aisha, Talha, Zubayr etc. were not individuals who held a theological belief in the hatred of Ali (a), rather it was a hatred based off other reasons, due to seeking power, love of wealth and so on. Nawasib and Khawarij were people who held certain theological beliefs, these groups were not formed until many decades later and this is why the narrations on them also only appear by later Imams (a).

Sadooq (رضي الله عنه) narrated from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) in Reliable narrations (According to Majlisi (رضي الله عنه)) that Imam said Three people lied upon Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I ain't listing names here.
They indeed did hate AhlulBait (عليه السلام). Governing people was right of AhleBait (عليه السلام) and its from Usool e Deen or at least Zaruriaat e Deen. Not Usool e politics.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

When the narration is talking about an Umm Kulthum and Ali bringing her to his house, which other Umm Kulthum would be so prominent in history at the time that you would think this is speaking about someone else? If it is someone else, what does she have to do with Ali?

Already mentioned that Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) has raised children of AbuBakr when Ali (عليه السلام) married his wife after AbuBakr's death and AbuBakr also had a daughter named Umme Kulthum.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

This is really funny. It would never say "her house" in Arabic because firstly it is not "her"

You need to teach Arabic to Mr. Nader Zaveri since I copied his translations!

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

you would leave the reader and listener confused. What you are saying it should say sounds like this, "When Umar died - while Umm Kulthum was in her house (i.e. Umar's house), Ali grabbed her hand and brought her to her house." A listener won't even be able to understand what's going on, how did she go from "her house" to "her house".

You did that on Purpose. Let me quote narration again:

From `Abd Allaah bin Sinaan and Mu`aawiyah bin `Ammaar from Abee `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام): He said: I asked about the women whose husband dies, can she do her `iddah in her house or wherever she wants? He (عليه السلام) said: “It is wherever she wants, that `Alee (عليه السلام) brought Umm Kulthoom to his home when she became free, when `Umar died”
Source:
1.     Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 6, pg. 115, hadeeth # 2

Question is Should a widow spend Iddah in her house or anywhere she likes.
Now "anywhere she likes" can be any place other than "her house" - (Simple Logic)
And Imam (عليه السلام) said she can spend iddah anywhere she likes and gave example of Ali (عليه السلام) bringing Umme Kulthum (عليه السلام) to "his House"
Now house of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has to be some place other than "her house" in order to fit the example given by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام).
If she was his daughter, then example would be invalid implying Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) made a mistake Nauzobillah
thus she can't be daughter of Ali (عليه السلام).

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

"When Umar died - while Umm Kulthum was in her house (i.e. Umar's house), Ali grabbed her hand and brought her to her house." A listener won't even be able to understand what's going on, how did she go from "her house" to "her house"

This happens when we go with your view that it was Umme Kulthum Bint Ali (عليه السلام).

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

Why on earth would it mention "bint Ali"? If there are narrations that mention Fatima (s) without mentioning "bint Muhammad" while the reports are about the Prophet's family, or someone coming to the Prophet and asking him about Fatima or the Prophet going to Fatima etc., will you just make assumptions that this is someone else? No, because Fatima is a well known figure and the daughter of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), when her name is mentioned in these contexts you don't assume it is someone else, rather you assume her to be the daughter of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and you expect the report to mention her father's name IF it was some other Fatima. So when there are narrations concerning the Imams or Ali, or Ali and Umar, it is absurd to assume some other Umm Kulthum is being spoken about. If it was another Umm Kulthum they would have to mention who she was the daughter of because of her complete irrelevance to Ali and the rest of his family. Which of the other Umm Kulthum had anything to do with Ali, or the rest of the Imams - why does Abu Abdillah in the above narration use the word "forced from us". Why is she part of "us"? Us implies she was part of family

I've already responded to this. It's more absurd the other way round.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

You are right it does not mention Umm Kulthum, but it is not that complicated to put all these narrations together to figure out what is being spoken about. Further, it may be illogical in 21st century, but this sounds very possible 14 centuries ago when other family members may have to play such roles and responsibiliies in these type of matters.

In light of some events and relations of Ahlul-bait with them, it seems impossible. a common twelver of 21st century shouldn't marry his daughter to Nasibis, but Ali (عليه السلام) the leader of twelvers can marry his daughter (عليه السلام) to leader of Nasibis. Very illogical and absurd.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

Well lucky for you the narration is considered authentic by Ayatullah Shobeiry Zanjani who considers جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْقُمِّيِّ as thiqa upon further research and most likely considers him to be جعفر بن محمد الأشعري who narrates from Ibn al-Qaddah a lot.

Chain of Narrations:

Muhammad Bin Ahmed Bin Yahya -> Jafar Bin Muhammad Al-Qummi -> Al-Qaddah -> Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) ->Imam Baqir (عليه السلام):
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْقُمِّيِّ عَنِ الْقَدَّاحِ عَنْ جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ ع قَالَ مَاتَتْ أُمُّ كُلْثُومٍ بِنْتُ عَلِيٍّ ع وَ ابْنُهَا زَيْدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ فِي سَاعَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ لَا يُدْرَى أَيُّهُمَا هَلَكَ قَبْلُ فَلَمْ يُوَرِّثْ أَحَدَهُمَا مِنَ الْآخَرِ وَ صَلَّى عَلَيْهِمَا جَمِيعاً

First of All:

2272 - 2271 - 2280 - جعفر بن محمد بن عبيد الله: - له كتاب - روى عدة روايات - طريق الشيخ اليه ضعيف - متحد مع جعفر بن محمد القمي 2306، ومتحد مع جعفر بن محمد الأشعري 2238 - مجهول 

Jaffer Bin Muhammad Al-Qummi Majhool

المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ١١٣
Allamah Majlisi said hadith is Majhool Mirat ul Uqool
So did Khoei in Mujam Ur Rijal Al Hadith

Thus a Majhool narration own its own can't prove anything.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

By showing that it actually may well be a very reliable narration. 

Quote

Not proven dear. Prove that Jaffer Bin Muhammad Al-Qummi is thiqa.

On 11/24/2020 at 6:49 AM, Guest Hunter said:

None of this disproves the historical event, these reports you have cited are being said in 2nd century hijri and have a lot of socio-political contexts that needs to be understood. None of these narrations prove Umar is actually to be classified legally as a Nasibi or not

Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had made a will that Ali's daughters would marry children of Jaffer. It's impossible for Ali (عليه السلام) to ignore it or override it.

Followers of Umar are Nawasib but Umar himself isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

So saying Marrying nawasib became haram much later is basically same as accusing Aima (عليه السلام) of Biddah Nauzobillah. Deen was completed long ago and they (عليه السلام) didn't make new additions to deen rather conveyed rulings of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Nawasib are a group of people who held a theological belief that they must hate the Ahl ul-Bayt (a). The first three caliphs did not hold this view as a theological belief, there is no evidence for this. This is a later theological group developed post-Bani Umayyah.

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Already mentioned that Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) has raised children of AbuBakr when Ali (عليه السلام) married his wife after AbuBakr's death and AbuBakr also had a daughter named Umme Kulthum.

Firstly, this does not resolve the fact that Ali gave some young girl - over whom he had guardianship - to a "Nasibi". Secondly, historically speaking Umm Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr was well known to have been married to Talha - there is no dispute on this matter. Thirdly, Umm Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr was not the daughter of Asma bint Umays (the wife of Abu Bakr who Imam Ali married), so she is a very irrelevant figure in the life of Imam Ali (a).

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Question is Should a widow spend Iddah in her house or anywhere she likes.
Now "anywhere she likes" can be any place other than "her house" - (Simple Logic)
And Imam (عليه السلام) said she can spend iddah anywhere she likes and gave example of Ali (عليه السلام) bringing Umme Kulthum (عليه السلام) to "his House"
Now house of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has to be some place other than "her house" in order to fit the example given by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام).
If she was his daughter, then example would be invalid implying Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) made a mistake Nauzobillah
thus she can't be daughter of Ali (عليه السلام).

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. You are arguing that because Imam Ali (a) brought her to "his house", this shows that this was not Umm Kulthum the daughter of Ali because it was also "her house" already. I said, the narration would never say "her house" since the sentence would not make sense. It would say, "Umm Kulthum was brought from her house, to her house, by Imam Ali".

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I've already responded to this. It's more absurd the other way round.

In light of some events and relations of Ahlul-bait with them, it seems impossible. a common twelver of 21st century shouldn't marry his daughter to Nasibis, but Ali (عليه السلام) the leader of twelvers can marry his daughter (عليه السلام) to leader of Nasibis. Very illogical and absurd.

The history and conduct of Imam Ali (a) in the times of the first 3 caliphs shows that he did not treat them as Nasibis in any way whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Not proven dear. Prove that Jaffer Bin Muhammad Al-Qummi is thiqa.

This narrator is جعفر بن محمد الأشعري - look him up.

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had made a will that Ali's daughters would marry children of Jaffer. It's impossible for Ali (عليه السلام) to ignore it or override it.

Followers of Umar are Nawasib but Umar himself isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

No Shi'a jurist says "followers of Umar are Nawasib", or else all Sunnis would be considered Nasibis and the rulings of Najasah would apply on them.

I ask you - as a Shi'a - to please stop this conspiracy-laden reading of early history, particularly on matters which are accepted by all early Sunni and Shi'a scholars. This has caused too much damage to Tashayyu' and we look like a joke in front of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

Nawasib are a group of people who held a theological belief that they must hate the Ahl ul-Bayt (a). The first three caliphs did not hold this view as a theological belief, there is no evidence for this. This is a later theological group developed post-Bani Umayyah.

Marrying people who Hate Ahlul-Bait (عليه السلام) is haram. This ruling wasn't added to islam by Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) rather deen was completed at Ghadeer e khum thus it was haram for Ali (عليه السلام) to do so and it ahs been established by vast number of authentic hadiths. Idk how many times you will repeat it.

13 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

Firstly, this does not resolve the fact that Ali gave some young girl - over whom he had guardianship - to a "Nasibi".

If you are just taking care of some other child, it wouldn't give you Wilayah over that child like a father has. And Imam Ali (عليه السلام) refused in the first place to marry. I t was Ibn Abbas who asked Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to let him handle this.

13 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

Secondly, historically speaking Umm Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr was well known to have been married to Talha - there is no dispute on this matter.

Some scholars have suggested that the Umm Kulthum who married 'Umar was the daughter of Abu Bakr, rather than Imam 'Ali (a). A Sunni scholar, al-Nawawi, has accepted this account in his book, Tahdhib al-asma'

 Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa l-lughāt, vol. 2, p. 630

If it was so well established then such an esteemed scholars from Ahle Sunnah wouldn't say such things right?

13 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

Thirdly, Umm Kulthum the daughter of Abu Bakr was not the daughter of Asma bint Umays (the wife of Abu Bakr who Imam Ali married), so she is a very irrelevant figure in the life of Imam Ali (a).

That's fine. We are just talking about a possibility based upon these hadiths.

13 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

I said, the narration would never say "her house" since the sentence would not make sense. It would say, "Umm Kulthum was brought from her house, to her house, by Imam Ali".

You didn't understand. The narration is perfect. I said the Place where Ali took Umme kulthum has to be a place other than her house as per context.

13 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

The history and conduct of Imam Ali (a) in the times of the first 3 caliphs shows that he did not treat them as Nasibis in any way whatsoever.

Quote

How are you supposed to treat Nawasib? If they come to an Imam and ask for help in worldly matters, Imam would definitely advise them Its the duty of an Imam to guide the one who refers to him. What Ali thought of them is clearly written in Sahih Muslim though.

Its strange that defenders of Sheikhein are Nasibis but their leaders aren't.

14 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

This narrator is جعفر بن محمد الأشعري - look him up.

Quote

Majlisi said: Majhool
Khoei said: Majhool
Jawahiri said: Majhool

I wrote this in the previous post.

14 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

No Shi'a jurist says "followers of Umar are Nawasib", or else all Sunnis would be considered Nasibis and the rulings of Najasah would apply on them.

I ask you - as a Shi'a - to please stop this conspiracy-laden reading of early history, particularly on matters which are accepted by all early Sunni and Shi'a scholars. This has caused too much damage to Tashayyu' and we look like a joke in front of the world.

If you know very basics of shia Imamah and Sunni Calipahte, and still reject Imamah and wilayah of AhleBait, that makes you a Nasibi. Most of AhleSunnah don't know about it and they aren't considered Nasibis right. They are the weak ones as mentioned by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) and its haram for shia women to marry them:

Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Abdul Rahman Bin Abu Najran, from
Abdullah Bin Sinan who said,
‘I asked Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام) about the Hostile one (Nasibi) whose hostility is
recognised, as well as his enmity. Can we get the Believing woman to marry him,
and he (the guardian of the woman) is able to reject his proposal, and he (the Nasibi)
cannot prove his righteous beliefs’. He (عليه السلام) said: ‘Neither can the Believer marry the 

hostile woman (Nasibi), nor can the hostile one (Nasibi) marry the believing woman,
nor can the believing woman marry the weak ones
.

Majlisi said : Sahih mirat ul uqool volume 20 page 51

As for Nawasib, its clearly Haram. The Sheikhein are they one's who denied Ghadeer E khum and usurped rights of Ahlebait (عليه السلام). Fatimah Zahra (عليه السلام) died angry with them.

People like you are causing much more damage to Shi'a by accepting false narratives that don't even fit Usool Al-hadith given by Aima (عليه السلام).
All early Shia Scholars you say? What about Mufeed? Is he from 21st century? You care about world, we care about Akhirat. World isn't worth caring.
Good luck pleasing Nawasib and  Christians! You can't even prove Kulyani accepted it since Kulayni made chapter named "Tazweej e Umme Kulthum". He didn't mention Bint e Ali.

In the next post, I will prove inshaAllah , that if these hadiths refer to Umme kulthum Bint e Ali, then they have been reported due to taqqiyah and they are nothing except for Misguidance

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If these hadiths refer to Umme Kulthum Bint Ali (عليه السلام), then see how many authentic narrations, it contradicts:

1. Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)'s Hadith (Contradictions #1):

Some verses of Surah Al-Najam:

وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ ٱلْهَوَىٰٓ
3. Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.

إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْىٌۭ يُوحَىٰ
4. It is not but a revelation revealed,

عَلَّمَهُۥ شَدِيدُ ٱلْقُوَىٰ
5. Taught to him by one intense in strength –

ذُو مِرَّةٍۢ فَٱسْتَوَىٰ
6. One of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form

4384 - و " نظر النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم إلى أولاد علي وجعفر عليهما السلام فقال: " بناتنا لبنينا وبنونا لبناتنا "

And Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) looked at the children of Ali (عليه السلام) and Jafer (عليه السلام) and said: "Our Daughters are for our Sons and our sons are for our daughters".

من لا يحضره الفقيه - الشيخ الصدوق - ج ٣ - الصفحة ٣٩٣

Mursal of Sadooq is fully trusted and authentic according to many scholars (Including Khoei) and Sahih according to Sadooq in introduction of Al-Faiqh. Sadooq even called them Hujjah. Sadooq trusted this hadith to a level that he quoted it in Al-Iteqadaat:

(٤١) (باب الاعتقاد في العلوية) قال الشيخ - رضي الله عنه -: اعتقادنا في العلوية أنهم (١) آل رسول الله، وأن مودتهم واجبة، لأنها أجر النبوة (٢).
قال عز وجل: ﴿قل لا أسئلكم عليه أجرا إلا المودة في القربى﴾ (3).
والصدقة عليهم محرمة، لأنها أوساخ (4) أيدي الناس وطهارة لهم، إلا صدقتهم لإمائهم وعبيدهم، وصدقة بعضهم على بعض.
وأما الزكاة فإنها تحل لهم اليوم (5) عوضا عن الخمس، لأنهم قد منعوا منه.
واعتقادنا في المسئ منهم أن عليه ضعف العقاب، وفي المحسن منهم أن له ضعف الثواب.
وبعضهم أكفاء بعض، لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم حين نظر إلى بنين وبنات علي وجعفر ابني (أبي) طالب: (بناتنا كبنينا، وبنونا كبناتنا) (6).

الاعتقادات في دين الإمامية - الشيخ الصدوق - الصفحة ١١١

Now its clear that Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by the order of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) had made this decision that Children of Ali (عليه السلام) and Jaffer (عليه السلام) are for each other only. How did Ali (عليه السلام) not obey Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Contradiction #2:

Muhammad Bin Yahya -> Ahmad Bin Muhammad -> Abdul Rahman Bin Abu Najran -> Abdullah Bin Sinan who said:
‘I asked Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام) about the Hostile one (Nasibi) whose hostility is recognized, as well as his enmity. Can we get the Believing woman to marry him, and he (the guardian of the woman) is able to reject his proposal, and he (the Nasibi) cannot prove his righteous beliefs.

He (عليه السلام) said: ‘Neither can the Believer marry the  hostile woman (Nasibi), nor can the hostile one (Nasibi) marry the believing woman, nor can the believing woman marry the weak ones.

Majlisi said : Sahih mirat ul uqool volume 20 page 51

All narrators of this hadith are thiqa.

Common shias aren't allowed to marry their women to any non-shia according the words of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام), then how can Leader of All Shias marry his daughter to a person who was the one who refused to give pen and paper to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who was one of those who usurped Fadak from Fatima (عليه السلام) and Fatimah died angry with him. Who accepted Ali as his Maula at Ghadeer but later broke the oath and usurped Wilayah and caliphate?

But all hadiths have a Good Chain what to accept?:

10ـ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ الْحُصَيْنِ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ حَنْظَلَةَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ الله (عَلَيْهِ السَّلام) عَنْ رَجُلَيْنِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا بَيْنَهُمَا مُنَازَعَةٌ فِي دَيْنٍ أَوْ مِيرَاثٍ فَتَحَاكَمَا إِلَى السُّلْطَانِ وَإِلَى الْقُضَاةِ أَ يَحِلُّ ذَلِكَ قَالَ مَنْ تَحَاكَمَ إِلَيْهِمْ فِي حَقٍّ أَوْ بَاطِلٍ فَإِنَّمَا تَحَاكَمَ إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَمَا يَحْكُمُ لَهُ فَإِنَّمَا يَأْخُذُ سُحْتاً وَإِنْ كَانَ حَقّاً ثَابِتاً لانَّهُ أَخَذَهُ بِحُكْمِ الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أَمَرَ الله أَنْ يُكْفَرَ بِهِ قَالَ الله تَعَالَى يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ قُلْتُ فَكَيْفَ يَصْنَعَانِ قَالَ يَنْظُرَانِ إِلَى مَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مِمَّنْ قَدْ رَوَى حَدِيثَنَا وَنَظَرَ فِي حَلالِنَا وَحَرَامِنَا وَعَرَفَ أَحْكَامَنَا فَلْيَرْضَوْا بِهِ حَكَماً فَإِنِّي قَدْ جَعَلْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ حَاكِماً فَإِذَا حَكَمَ بِحُكْمِنَا فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْهُ مِنْهُ فَإِنَّمَا اسْتَخَفَّ بِحُكْمِ الله وَعَلَيْنَا رَدَّ وَالرَّادُّ عَلَيْنَا الرَّادُّ عَلَى الله وَهُوَ عَلَى حَدِّ الشِّرْكِ بِالله قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَ كُلُّ رَجُلٍ اخْتَارَ رَجُلاً مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا فَرَضِيَا أَنْ يَكُونَا النَّاظِرَيْنِ فِي حَقِّهِمَا وَاخْتَلَفَا فِيمَا حَكَمَا وَكِلاهُمَا اخْتَلَفَا فِي حَدِيثِكُمْ قَالَ الْحُكْمُ مَا حَكَمَ بِهِ أَعْدَلُهُمَا وَأَفْقَهُهُمَا وَأَصْدَقُهُمَا فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَأَوْرَعُهُمَا وَلا يَلْتَفِتْ إِلَى مَا يَحْكُمُ بِهِ الاخَرُ قَالَ قُلْتُ فَإِنَّهُمَا عَدْلانِ مَرْضِيَّانِ عِنْدَ أَصْحَابِنَا لا يُفَضَّلُ وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمَا عَلَى الاخَرِ قَالَ فَقَالَ يُنْظَرُ إِلَى مَا كَانَ مِنْ رِوَايَتِهِمْ عَنَّا فِي ذَلِكَ الَّذِي حَكَمَا بِهِ الْمُجْمَعُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِكَ فَيُؤْخَذُ بِهِ مِنْ حُكْمِنَا وَيُتْرَكُ الشَّاذُّ الَّذِي لَيْسَ بِمَشْهُورٍ عِنْدَ أَصْحَابِكَ فَإِنَّ الْمُجْمَعَ عَلَيْهِ لا رَيْبَ فِيهِ وَإِنَّمَا الامُورُ ثَلاثَةٌ أَمْرٌ بَيِّنٌ رُشْدُهُ فَيُتَّبَعُ وَأَمْرٌ بَيِّنٌ غَيُّهُ فَيُجْتَنَبُ وَأَمْرٌ مُشْكِلٌ يُرَدُّ عِلْمُهُ إِلَى الله وَإِلَى رَسُولِهِ قَالَ رَسُولُ الله (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه) حَلالٌ بَيِّنٌ وَحَرَامٌ بَيِّنٌ وَشُبُهَاتٌ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ فَمَنْ تَرَكَ الشُّبُهَاتِ نَجَا مِنَ الْمُحَرَّمَاتِ وَمَنْ أَخَذَ بِالشُّبُهَاتِ ارْتَكَبَ الْمُحَرَّمَاتِ وَهَلَكَ مِنْ حَيْثُ لا يَعْلَمُ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَ الْخَبَرَانِ عَنْكُمَا مَشْهُورَيْنِ قَدْ رَوَاهُمَا الثِّقَاتُ عَنْكُمْ قَالَ يُنْظَرُ فَمَا وَافَقَ حُكْمُهُ حُكْمَ الْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّةِ وَخَالَفَ الْعَامَّةَ فَيُؤْخَذُ بِهِ وَيُتْرَكُ مَا خَالَفَ حُكْمُهُ حُكْمَ الْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّةِ وَوَافَقَ الْعَامَّةَ قُلْتُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ أَ رَأَيْتَ إِنْ كَانَ الْفَقِيهَانِ عَرَفَا حُكْمَهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّةِ وَوَجَدْنَا أَحَدَ الْخَبَرَيْنِ مُوَافِقاً لِلْعَامَّةِ وَالاخَرَ مُخَالِفاً لَهُمْ بِأَيِّ الْخَبَرَيْنِ يُؤْخَذُ قَالَ مَا خَالَفَ الْعَامَّةَ فَفِيهِ الرَّشَادُ فَقُلْتُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ فَإِنْ وَافَقَهُمَا الْخَبَرَانِ جَمِيعاً قَالَ يُنْظَرُ إِلَى مَا هُمْ إِلَيْهِ أَمْيَلُ حُكَّامُهُمْ وَقُضَاتُهُمْ فَيُتْرَكُ وَيُؤْخَذُ بِالاخَرِ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ وَافَقَ حُكَّامُهُمُ الْخَبَرَيْنِ جَمِيعاً قَالَ إِذَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ فَأَرْجِهْ حَتَّى تَلْقَى إِمَامَكَ فَإِنَّ الْوُقُوفَ عِنْدَ الشُّبُهَاتِ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الاقْتِحَامِ فِي الْهَلَكَاتِ.


10. Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Safwan ibn Yahya from Dawud ibn al-Husayn from ‘Umar ibn Hanzala who has said the following. “I asked Imam abu ‘Abdallah ((عليه السلام).) about the two people with a dispute between them on the issue of debts or inheritance and they go to the king or the judges for a decision is it permissible to seek such decisions?” The Imam replied, “Whoever would go to them for a judgement in a right or wrongful matter it is like seeking the judgment of the devil. Anything received through such judgment would like consuming filth even if it would one’s established right. It is because of receiving through the judgment of the devil and Allah has commanded to reject the devil, “yet choose to take their affairs to Satan for judgment even though they are commanded to deny him. Satan wants to lead them far away from the right path. (4:60)” I said, “What should then they do?” The Imam replied, “They must look for one among you who have narrated our Hadith and have studied what is lawful and unlawful in our teachings and have learned our laws they must agree to settle their dispute according to his judgment because I have made him over you a ruler. When he may judge according to our commands and then it is not accepted from him the dissenting this judgment has ignored the commands of Allah and it is rejection of us. Rejecting us is rejecting Allah and that is up to the level of paganism and considering things equal to Allah.” I said, “What if each one of such disputing parties would chose a man from among our people and agree to accept their judgment but these two man would come up with different judgments and they would have differences in your Hadith?” The Imam replied, “The judgment will be the judgment of the one who has a more just, having more better understanding of the law, Fiqh, the more truthful in Hadith and the more pious of the two. The judgment of the other one will be disregarded.” I said, “What if both (of such judges) would be just and accepted among our people and none of them would have been any preference over the other?” The Imam replied, “One must consider and study the hadith that each one of them would narrate from us as to which has received the acceptance of all of your people. Such Hadith must be followed and the one, which rarely accepted and is not popular in your people, must be disregarded because the one popularly accepted is free of doubts. The nature of cases are of three kinds: (a) A case that is a well-known and true to follow. (b) A case that is well known to be false to stay away from. (c) And a confusing case the knowledge of which must be left to Allah and His Prophet for an answer. The holy Prophet has said, ‘There is the clearly lawful and the clearly unlawful and the confusing cases. One who stays away from the confusing ones he has protected himself against the unlawful ones. Those who follow the confusing matters they indulge in unlawful matters and will be destroyed unexpectedly.” I said, “What if both Hadith from you would be popular and narrated by the trustworthy people from you?” The Imam replied, “One must study to find out which one agrees with the laws of the Quran and the Sunnah and it does not agree with the laws of the those who oppose us. Such Hadith must be accepted and the one that disagree with the laws of the Quran and the Sunnah and coincides the masses must be disregarded. I said, “May Allah take my soul in the service of your cause, What if both Faqih, scholars of the law would have deduced and learned their judgment from the book and the Sunnah and found that one of the Hadith agrees with the masses and the other disagrees with the masses which one must be followed?” The Imam replied, “The one which disagrees with the masses must be followed because in it there is guidance.” I said, “May Allah take my soul in the service of your cause, what if both Hadith would agree with the masses?” The Imam replied, “One must study to find out of the two the one that is more agreeable to their rulers and judges must be disregarded and the other must be followed.” I said, “What if both Hadith would agree with their rulers?” The Imam replied, “If such would be the case it must be suspended until you meet your Imam. Restraint in confusing cases is better than indulging in destruction.”

Majlisi Said: موثق تلقاه الصحاب بالقبول - Miraat Ul Uqool 221/ 1 ()

Narrators:

 عُمَرَ بْنِ حَنْظَلَةَ:

Majhool

داود بن الحصين:
4383 - 4382 - 4391 - داود بن الحصين: الأسدي - من أصحاب الصادق، والكاظم (ع) - واقفي - ثقة
المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٢١٥

4391 - داود بن الحصين:
قال النجاشي: " داود بن حصين الأسدي: مولاهم، كوفي، ثقة
معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ٨ - الصفحة ١٠٢

صفوان بن يحيى:
From Ashaab Al-Ijma and there is Ijma on accepting narrations of Ashaab Al-Ijma as pe Kashi. From here, I don't even need prove other narrators thiqa.

محمد بن عيسى:
11536 - محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين:
قال النجاشي: " محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين بن موسى، مولى أسد ابن خزيمة، أبو جعفر: جليل في أصحابنا، ثقة، عين، كثير الرواية، حسن التصانيف،
معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ٨ - الصفحة ١٠٤

11517 - 11513 - 11540 - محمد بن عيسى العبيدي: روى 25 رواية، منها عن أبي الحسن (ع) - وهو محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين " الثقة المتقدم 11513 ".
المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٥٦٥

محمد بن الحسين:
10581 - محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب:
قال النجاشي: " محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، أبو جعفر الزيات الهمداني، واسم أبي الخطاب زيد: جليل من أ صحابنا، عظيم القدر، كثير الرواية، ثقة، عين، حسن التصانيف،
معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ١٦ - الصفحة ٣٠٨

10559 - 10554 - 10581 - محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب: أبو جعفر الزيات الهمداني واسم أبي الخطاب زيد، جليل من أصحابنا، عظيم القدر، كثير الرواية، ثقة، عين.
المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٥١٨

محمد بن يحيى:
11986 - 11982 - 12010 - محمد بن يحيى أبو جعفر العطار: ثقة عين - كثير الحديث، له كتب. قاله النجاشي - روى عنه الكليني، قمي، كثير الرواية، قاله الشيخ - روى في كامل الزيارات - تأتي له روايات بعنوان محمد بن يحيى العطار " في 12008 "
المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٥٨٨

12010 - محمد بن يحيى أبو جعفر العطار:
= محمد بن يحيى العطار.
قال النجاشي: " محمد بن يحيى أبو جعفر العطار القمي، شيخ أصحابنا في زمانه، ثقة، عين، كثير الحديث،
معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ١٩ - الصفحة ٣٣

Therefore, according to laws of Imam e Sadiq (عليه السلام), an authentic narrative that contradicts Authentic narrations and is Similar to that of Sunnis, it should be discarded since it would MISGUIDE!

Therefore the hadiths mentioned, become weak and un acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Marrying people who Hate Ahlul-Bait (عليه السلام) is haram. This ruling wasn't added to islam by Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) rather deen was completed at Ghadeer e khum thus it was haram for Ali (عليه السلام) to do so and it ahs been established by vast number of authentic hadiths. Idk how many times you will repeat it.

Why on earth did the later Imams marry daughters of misguided people, the same daughters who ended up poisoning the Imams and killing them? They didn't realize that these wives were haters their whole married life? Why on earth would some companions come to the Imams and tell them my wife is a hater and does not know about Wilayah and yet the Imams didn't say your marriage is invalid and haram? Stop living in some fantasy world made up in your mind. There is no ruling that says if someone has hate and dislikes the Ahl al-Bayt for some worldly reason, then it is haram to marry them. The ruling says, if someone has a theological belief, that one as a Muslim must hate the Ahl al-Bayt, then these people are called Nawasib and yes it is prohibited to marry them. Just like tabarri is a theologial belief of the Shi'as, tabarri from the Ahl al-Bayt was a theological belief of the Nawasib. This theological belief was non-existent at the time of the 3 caliphs. I don't know why you can't differentiate between the two? I already quoted Khomeini on this matter.

Quote

If you are just taking care of some other child, it wouldn't give you Wilayah over that child like a father has. And Imam Ali (عليه السلام) refused in the first place to marry. I t was Ibn Abbas who asked Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to let him handle this.

If such a marriage is haram and Ali didn't interfere in it to stop it, then he did not do nahi 'anil-munkar, and if at the end 'Ali was fine with it, then he did اعانة على الاثم (assisted in a sin), and went against the Quranic verse: وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ. If you say he had to do taqiyya, then in that case even the marriage of his own daughter will be justified.

Quote

Some scholars have suggested that the Umm Kulthum who married 'Umar was the daughter of Abu Bakr, rather than Imam 'Ali (a). A Sunni scholar, al-Nawawi, has accepted this account in his book, Tahdhib al-asma'

 Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa l-lughāt, vol. 2, p. 630

If it was so well established then such an esteemed scholars from Ahle Sunnah wouldn't say such things right?

Where does Nawawi say such a thing? These are all the places Nawawi says Umm Kulthum the daughter of Imam Ali married Umar (http://lib.eshia.ir/40340/2/365):

أم كلثوم بنت على بن أبى طالب، رضى الله عنه وعنها
مذكورة فى صلاة الميت من المهذب، هى بضم الكاف، وهى بنت فاطمة، رضى الله عنها، بنت رسول الله - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، ولدت فى حياة رسول الله - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، تزوجها عمر بن الخطاب، رضى الله عنه، فولدت له زيدًا، ورقية، وتوفيت أم كلثوم هى وابنها زيد بن عمر فى يوم واحد، وقد تقدم بيان ذلك فى ترجمة زيد

Elsewhere in Zayd's entry (http://lib.eshia.ir/40340/1/204): 

 زيد بن عمر بن الخطاب
مذكور فى المهذب فى صلاة الجنازة. هو ابن أمير المؤمنين عمر بن الخطاب، رضى الله عنه، من زوجته أم كلثوم بنت على بن أبى طالب من فاطمة بنت رسول الله - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، رضى الله عنهم. قال ابن أبى حاتم: سمعت أبى يقول: توفى زيد وأمه أم كلثوم فى ساعة واحدة، وهو صغير، ولا يُدرى أيهما مات أولاً

In the entry of Fatima al-Zahra Nawawi writes (http://lib.eshia.ir/40340/2/353):

وأما أم كلثوم فتزوجها عمر بن الخطاب، رضى الله عنه، فولدت له زيدًا

Quote

You didn't understand. The narration is perfect. I said the Place where Ali took Umme kulthum has to be a place other than her house as per context.

I don't know if others can see how silly your argument here is. Ali did bring her to a place other than her house - he brought his daughter to HIS house. You are thinking as if Ali lived in a mansion with 10 bedrooms for all his wives and gave Umm Kulthum a spot in the living room. That is not how they lived. In Medina they had separate small joined "houses" and in some cases a few multiple rooms in one house for their wives, these were called bayt (a place where you sleep the night). Once Umm Kulthum is gone to Umar's house that is considered her bayt, her father's house is no longer "her house" (her bayt). she is at the disposal of her husband. Once her husband dies, the questioner is asking if she can go and sleep and live elsewhere, and it says Ali brought her to "his" house (bayt), because even if she is the daughter, as a widowed woman, it is not HER place of living anymore, it is her father's place of living.

Quote

Majlisi said: Majhool
Khoei said: Majhool
Jawahiri said: Majhool

I wrote this in the previous post.

This narrator is: جعفر بن محمد الأشعري

Khu'i says: وقد مرّ أنّ من المطمأن به أنّ جعفر بن محمد الاشعري الذي روى عن عبداللّه بن ميمون كثيراً هو جعفر بن محمد بن عبيد اللّه

He is not majhul, Shubayri Zanjani says he is thiqa. He is also not excluded by Ibn al-Walid from al-Nawadir, and that implies his trustworthiness.

I'll ignore the rest of your conspiracy rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, Guest Hunter said:

Shubayri Zanjani says he is thiqa

Who is Shubayri Zanjani? He was born in 1928 how did he authentic a narrator who wasn't authenticated by any of classical scholars?  Whereas all Giants of this field considered him Majhool.
 

29 minutes ago, Guest Hunter said:

Khu'i says: وقد مرّ أنّ من المطمأن به أنّ جعفر بن محمد الاشعري الذي روى عن عبداللّه بن ميمون كثيراً هو جعفر بن محمد بن عبيد اللّه

It just says he has narrated alot from Abdullah Bin Memon Al-Qaddah. How can you use it to authenticate him? How does this serves as tawtheeq of this person?

Take another reference:

image.thumb.png.3ead8079110e6b4c8270fd38dd648c0a.pngimage.thumb.png.7f27d21d0b8cf8d77824ba950536a346.png 

According to Uloom Al-Hadith by Ali Neseri, Page 186-187
Muhmal is term used when narrator is mentioned in books of Rijal but wasn't praised or criticized by anyone.

He isn't recognized by any classical scholar as thiqa. We don't really about this person so how did a person born in 1928 came to conclusion that he is thiqa?
You have no clear evidence for it.

Nader Zaveri himself admitted he is Majhul according to Khoei.
Allamah Majlisi says the same.

Mamqani says similar.
Jawahiri says the same.

2801 - جعفر بن محمد بن عبيد الله بن عتبة:
لم يذكروه. روى ابن عقدة، عنه، عن أيوب بن نوح كتب عبد الله بن المغيرة. جش ص 149.
مستدركات علم رجال الحديث - الشيخ علي النمازي الشاهرودي - ج ٢ - الصفحة ٢٠٧
Ali Nimazi Shares similar view.

This hadith is baseless. All experts have dismissed this narrator.

Also in authentic hadiths, when its mentioned that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) took Umme kulthum to his house, if she had a son he would have definitely been mentioned but it isn't the case. If she had a son, Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) would've mentioned that Ali took umme Kulthum along with her son to his house. but Imam didn't mention it. This narration has unique things that no others hadith has or haven't been narrated by anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

Why on earth did the later Imams marry daughters of misguided people, the same daughters who ended up poisoning the Imams and killing them? They didn't realize that these wives were haters their whole married life?

Imam's marriage with them is proof that they weren't evil at the time they married them. Rather got tempted later. Would Imams (عليه السلام) do something from which they stop their shias? Maybe according to your Aqeedah its possible but not according to ours.

1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

Why on earth would some companions come to the Imams and tell them my wife is a hater and does not know about Wilayah and yet the Imams didn't say your marriage is invalid and haram?

You need to read hadiths. 
First of all, Imam (عليه السلام) allowed Shias men to marry women who don't know about wilayah. I, in this forum, have quoted two sahih hadiths on that.
here see:

Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Jameel Bin Darraj, from Zurara who said,
‘I said to Abu Ja’far, ‘I fear that it is not Permissible for me that I marry the one
who does not happen to be upon my matter (Wilayah)’
. So he said: ‘What is
preventing you from the simple ones from the women?
’ I said, ‘And what is the
simple one?’ He said: ‘They are the weak ones from those who are not
establishing hostility (non Nasibis), and they do not recognise what you are upon’

Majlisi said: Sahih Mirat Ul Uqool v20 page 51

But when it comes to others, Imam forbade his companions to do so see this narration:

Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Ibn Mahboub, from Jameel Bin Salih, from
Fuzayl Bin Yasaar,
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah having said: ‘The Believer cannot marry
a Hostile woman , the one (who is) well known with that’

Majlisi said: Sahih Mirat Ul Uqool v20 page 51

1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

top living in some fantasy world made up in your mind. There is no ruling that says if someone has hate and dislikes the Ahl al-Bayt for some worldly reason, then it is haram to marry them.

Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Abdul Rahman Bin Abu Najran, from
Abdullah Bin Sinan who said,
‘I asked Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام) about the Hostile one  whose hostility is
recognised, as well as his enmity. Can we get the Believing woman to marry him,
and he (the guardian of the woman) is able to reject his proposal, and he 
cannot prove his righteous beliefs’.
He (عليه السلام) said: ‘Neither can the Believer marry the 

hostile woman  nor can the hostile one  marry the believing woman,
nor can the believing woman marry the weak ones

Google says Hostile means:

image.png.0185111b6e0bc9d407fe4ecd2a93e7a7.png

Majlisi said : Sahih mirat ul uqool volume 20 page 51

i am surprised your definition of Nasibi excludes a person who refused to give pen and paper to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who usurped Fadak from Fatima (عليه السلام) and Fatimah died angry with him. Who accepted Ali as his Maula at Ghadeer but later broke the oath and usurped Wilayah and caliphate

1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

The ruling says, if someone has a theological belief, that one as a Muslim must hate the Ahl al-Bayt, then these people are called Nawasib and yes it is prohibited to marry them. Just like tabarri is a theologial belief of the Shi'as, tabarri from the Ahl al-Bayt was a theological belief of the Nawasib. This theological belief was non-existent at the time of the 3 caliphs. I don't know why you can't differentiate between the two?

Give this ruling from Hadith. 

All of these rulings are part of Islam passed down to Imams (عليه السلام) by Muhammad. (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Islam was completed long ago and AhleBait didn't make additions to it. Rather they've conveyed hadiths of rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). So your claim is batil. Because marrying enemies of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) was haram from the time of Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as our Imams (عليه السلام) have said.

1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

I already quoted Khomeini on this matter.

Is word of Khomeni even a Hujjah? :hahaha:. Khomenis opinion isn't word of Masoom. it is weightless until proven.

And forget about Nasibi for a moment. Why are you ignoring the next part of hadith, where Imam (عليه السلام) says our Women cannot marry non nasibi people who are simple ones.
We need not to argue over definition of Nasibi.

1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

If such a marriage is haram and Ali didn't interfere in it to stop it, then he did not do nahi 'anil-munkar, and if at the end 'Ali was fine with it, then he did اعانة على الاثم (assisted in a sin), and went against the Quranic verse: وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ. If you say he had to do taqiyya, then in that case even the marriage of his own daughter will be justified.

Such a marriage is indeed haram. And this is the reason we see contradiction in two narratives.

The purpose of this post was to prove that if those hadiths are authentic, the it has to be some other umme kulthum and not the daughter of Ali (عليه السلام) else the reports contradict with other Sahih reports.

It wasn't meant to prove it was UmmeKulthum Bin Abi Bakr. Rather it was said that its possible that Umme kulthum umar married was bint Abi Bakr.

You in this comment admitted that there is contradiction and thats what i tried to point to from the first post.

And Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) in case of contradiction of authentic reports have told to discard report that is similar to that of AhleSunnah. because all of those narrations would do nothing but misguide you. but you called it a conspiracy.

1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

I'll ignore the rest of your conspiracy rant.

 

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Guest Hunter said:

Once Umm Kulthum is gone to Umar's house that is considered her bayt, her father's house is no longer "her house" (her bayt

You are wrong again. Women have a share in what their parents leave behind. If it was no longer her Bayt, it means she had no share in it after marriage. This Claim contradicts Quran and hadiths.

No hadith say after marriage Women has no share in property of her parents. That's illogical and absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

You are wrong again. Women have a share in what their parents leave behind. If it was no longer her Bayt, it means she had no share in it after marriage. This Claim contradicts Quran and hadiths.

No hadith say after marriage Women has no share in property of her parents. That's illogical and absurd.

What on earth does having a share in what the parents leave behind after they die have to do with it being "her house" while the parents are alive? The fact that the parents leave inheritance shows that it isn't legally "her house", she doesn't "own it". The father can sell it or renovate it without having to care about what his children's opinions are. It is her "father's house"! At the time Ali is alive, it is Ali's house, even if she is her daughter. You are holding on to straw.

Quote

i am surprised your definition of Nasibi excludes a person who refused to give pen and paper to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who usurped Fadak from Fatima (عليه السلام) and Fatimah died angry with him. Who accepted Ali as his Maula at Ghadeer but later broke the oath and usurped Wilayah and caliphate

Yes, it excludes such people, because it was not a pillar of their faith to do tabarri from the Prophet or the Ahl al-Bayt, like how it is a pillar of Shi'a faith to do tabarri from these people.

Quote

Who is Shubayri Zanjani? 

One of the strongest scholars of Rijal alive today...

Quote

It just says he has narrated alot from Abdullah Bin Memon Al-Qaddah. How can you use it to authenticate him? How does this serves as tawtheeq of this person?

I have doubts as to whether you are even fluent in Arabic or not, because clearly you are not understanding the arguments nor Khui's discussion in his Mu'jam. Khu'i does NOT believe this narrator is majhul, in fact he believes he is thiqa. Khu'i at the time of writing his Mu'jam al-Rijal believed in accepting narrators that appear in Kamil al-Ziyarat and hence he accepted the narrator as he appears in the book. Here is Khu'i using a narration with the same narrator and considers him thiqa (see القضاء و الحدود، ص: 287):

و قد يقال: إنّ الرواية ضعيفة، لجهالة جعفر بن محمّد
و لكنّه يندفع: بأنّ جعفر بن محمّد الذي يروي عن عبد اللَّه بن ميمون هو جعفر بن محمّد بن عبيد اللَّه، بقرينة أنّه من رواة كتابه على ما فصّلناه في كتابنا المعجم، و هو و إن لم يوثّق في كتب الرجال إلّا أنّه موجود في أسناد كامل الزيارات. فاذن الرواية صحيحة

Do you understand what this is even saying? I offered another argument and said that he is also a narrator who was not excluded by Ibn al-Walid from the book of al-Nawadir and hence it implies his trustworthiness. Do you even know what this argument means? If you are not familiar with science of Rijal, stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

Quote

2801 - جعفر بن محمد بن عبيد الله بن عتبة:
لم يذكروه. روى ابن عقدة، عنه، عن أيوب بن نوح كتب عبد الله بن المغيرة. جش ص 149.
مستدركات علم رجال الحديث - الشيخ علي النمازي الشاهرودي - ج ٢ - الصفحة ٢٠٧
Ali Nimazi Shares similar view.

This is some other narrator! Pay attention to the names you are citing, this is someone else! The narrator we are discussing is not 2801, it is 2806:

2806 - جعفر بن محمد بن علي الأشعري :
روى سهل بن زياد ، عنه ، عن عبد الله بن ميمون القداح . كذا في يب ج 7 باب السنة في عقود النكاح ص 408 ح 1630 عن الكليني . والظاهر أن كلمة ابن علي سهو من الناسخ ، والصحيح جعفر بن محمد الأشعري كما في الكافي ج 5 باب التزويج بغير خطبة ص 368 .

How can your analysis even be trusted when you are making such simple blunders?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

End it man. You are making discussion lengthy for no reason.

2 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

Khu'i at the time of writing his Mu'jam al-Rijal believed in accepting narrators that appear in Kamil al-Ziyarat and hence he accepted the narrator as he appears in the book. Here is Khu'i using a narration with the same narrator and considers him thiqa (see القضاء و الحدود، ص: 287):

و قد يقال: إنّ الرواية ضعيفة، لجهالة جعفر بن محمّد
و لكنّه يندفع: بأنّ جعفر بن محمّد الذي يروي عن عبد اللَّه بن ميمون هو جعفر بن محمّد بن عبيد اللَّه، بقرينة أنّه من رواة كتابه على ما فصّلناه في كتابنا المعجم، و هو و إن لم يوثّق في كتب الرجال إلّا أنّه موجود في أسناد كامل الزيارات. فاذن الرواية صحيحة

 

 Khoei did change his opinion about Kamil Al-Ziaraat in the end of his life. Every teacher of Ibn Qulawayh (from whom he narrates in Kamil Al-Ziaraat) is considered thiqa as per his testimony and not all of the narrators in the chains of hadiths of Kamil Al-Ziaraat. When Khoei changed his view about the book in end of his life, it means that his views about the book in the past weren't correct. Therefore according to Khoei, this guy is indeed Majhool.
There is no point in quoting views of a person which he himself corrected later.

2 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

Yes, it excludes such people, because it was not a pillar of their faith to do tabarri from the Prophet or the Ahl al-Bayt, like how it is a pillar of Shi'a faith to do tabarri from these people.

It doesn't. They separated themselves from AhlulBait after Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away. They usurped rights of AhleBait (عليه السلام) and Fatimah (عليه السلام) was angry with them. And this shows their clear hate for AhleBait (عليه السلام). You have no proof for what you are saying.

Secondly, the ruling is:

He (عليه السلام) said: ‘Neither can the Believer marry the 

hostile woman  nor can the hostile one  marry the believing woman,
nor can the believing woman marry the weak ones

Forget about Nasibis, answer this. If they weren't nasibi according to you, then for sure they were weak in faith. In Sahih hadith, its prohibited. Still it wouldn't get you anywhere.

2 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

This is some other narrator! Pay attention to the names you are citing, this is someone else! The narrator we are discussing is not 2801, it is 2806:

2806 - جعفر بن محمد بن علي الأشعري :
روى سهل بن زياد ، عنه ، عن عبد الله بن ميمون القداح . كذا في يب ج 7 باب السنة في عقود النكاح ص 408 ح 1630 عن الكليني . والظاهر أن كلمة ابن علي سهو من الناسخ ، والصحيح جعفر بن محمد الأشعري كما في الكافي ج 5 باب التزويج بغير خطبة ص 368 .

How can your analysis even be trusted when you are making such simple blunders?

Really sorry for that. But Ali Nimazi didn't authenticate him either

2 hours ago, Guest Hunter said:

I offered another argument and said that he is also a narrator who was not excluded by Ibn al-Walid from the book of al-Nawadir and hence it implies his trustworthiness. Do you even know what this argument means? If you are not familiar with science of Rijal, stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

Instead of taunting others, back it up with some evidence or at least shed some light on it.

Wide majority of experts like Majlisi, Jawahiri, Mamqani, Khoei did not authenticate this person rather labeled him as Majhool or مهمل and probably they knew about it right?
On top of that this hadith is Unique in its content.

If this hadith was Sahih, there must have been mention of Ali (عليه السلام) bringing Umme kulthum along with her son to his house. But there is no such thing.

On top of that, the author of article Reviving Al-Islam didn't authenticate this narration either. Its just you who's fighting for it.

I will not continue to argue over "her house" or "Nasibi" because to me it seems like it would never end.

If those narrations refer to Umme Kulthum Bint Ali, then in spite of their authentic chains, you won't be able to defend their matn.

You have admitted that they contradict other Sahih narrations.

And in case of contradictory narratives, Imam (عليه السلام) said take what goes against the masses since in it would be guidance. It means that narrations that are similar to that of Ahle-sunnah would have Misguidance. 

So based upon Usool given by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام), all hadiths of marriage of Umme Kulthum gets weakened.

In this thread, i tried to make a possible taweel but I guess it isn't really that strong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...